|
|
 |
| [Jun 22, 2011, 09:54 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
GameFront - Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal.
The really contentious part of Redner’s argument, however, is the fact that developers should be let off the hook because they “poured thousands of irreplaceable hours” into a game. This is an argument that I’ve seen many times before, that a reviewer needs to consider the feelings of the people who made it. I’d say that’s the last thing a reviewer needs to think about when assessing a game. Like it or not, a reviewer isn’t there to protect developers from feeling sad. This is not pre-school, where everybody gets a star and no child is left behind. This is the realm of business conducted by adults, and if you’re going to turn on the waterworks when your game is trashed, you should not be in an industry where art is produced for public consumption. It’s simply not the place for little princesses made of eggshells.
Joystick Division - Marketing Campaigns Are Doomsday Machines. Thanks Digg.
Duke Nukem Forever is the brightest, recent example of this horribly hilarious phenomenon, but it was preceded by two other first person shooters which enticed us to waste our money this year: Homefront and Brink. Together they form a Trifecta of Terrible. Behold the power of the marketing machine, and tremble.
 |
| 4. |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Jun 22, 2011, 11:04 |
Shataan |
|
|
"and if you’re going to turn on the waterworks when your game is trashed, you should not be in an industry"
or better yet, just make a good game. I am really starting to feel that the devs these days are so high on themselves they can do no wrong in their own eyes. And invariably we seem to more often than not be getting what they feel is enough to give, and what they feel is a great game.
But imo they are a tad out of touch with the gamer/buyer base of today. We are a Far Cry from the old days where there was healthy competition, and the games were not made by rock star attitudes. And the dev teams had ideas..... fresh ideas.
Unlike today where we gotta see FEAR after FEAR etc, or COD 4,5,6, etc. We seem to be in the " Hey lets just keep doing sequels" era. As for DUKE, well we all know it was rockstar Ego that spelled DKFs 10+ year demise. You definately do not get accolades for such a monumental screwup.
But I am sure that today in the Boardroom somewhere, there is no lack of back patting, and ass kissing, more than enough to make em all feel like the game was a success. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Jun 22, 10:00 |
Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Prez |
| |
2. |
Jun 22, 11:00 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Ratty |
| |
5. |
Jun 22, 11:04 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
nin |
| |
10. |
Jun 22, 11:57 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Prez |
| |
3. |
Jun 22, 11:02 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
7. |
Jun 22, 11:42 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| |
8. |
Jun 22, 11:53 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
11. |
Jun 22, 11:58 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| |
12. |
Jun 22, 12:07 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
13. |
Jun 22, 12:13 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Prez |
| |
27. |
Jun 22, 14:46 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
maleitch |
| |
28. |
Jun 22, 14:59 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
29. |
Jun 22, 15:12 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
30. |
Jun 22, 15:22 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Cutter |
| |
32. |
Jun 22, 15:33 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Tumbler |
| |
34. |
Jun 22, 15:38 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
nin |
| |
35. |
Jun 22, 16:09 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| |
36. |
Jun 22, 16:21 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Tumbler |
| |
37. |
Jun 22, 16:39 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| >> |
4. |
Jun 22, 11:04 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Shataan |
| |
6. |
Jun 22, 11:20 |
Re: Op Ed |
Domgrief |
| |
9. |
Jun 22, 11:55 |
Re: Op Ed |
spindoctor |
| |
14. |
Jun 22, 12:17 |
Re: Op Ed |
Creston |
| |
15. |
Jun 22, 12:33 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
16. |
Jun 22, 12:37 |
Re: Op Ed |
Creston |
| |
25. |
Jun 22, 14:23 |
Re: Op Ed |
jacobvandy |
| |
26. |
Jun 22, 14:29 |
Re: Op Ed |
DNForever |
| |
17. |
Jun 22, 12:46 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
18. |
Jun 22, 13:01 |
Duke Nukem is a No-Win Scenario |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
19. |
Jun 22, 13:21 |
Re: Op Ed |
Ruffiana |
| |
20. |
Jun 22, 13:30 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
21. |
Jun 22, 13:42 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
22. |
Jun 22, 13:56 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
23. |
Jun 22, 13:59 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
24. |
Jun 22, 14:22 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
31. |
Jun 22, 15:27 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
33. |
Jun 22, 15:34 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
38. |
Jun 22, 16:43 |
Re: Op Ed |
Acleacius |
| |
39. |
Jun 22, 16:47 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
40. |
Jun 22, 17:04 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
41. |
Jun 22, 17:13 |
Re: Op Ed |
Creston |
| |
42. |
Jun 22, 17:15 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
43. |
Jun 22, 17:26 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
44. |
Jun 22, 17:42 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
51. |
Jun 22, 18:54 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
53. |
Jun 22, 19:08 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
58. |
Jun 22, 21:00 |
Re: Op Ed |
Jerykk |
| |
60. |
Jun 22, 21:59 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
62. |
Jun 22, 22:44 |
Re: Op Ed |
Jerykk |
| |
64. |
Jun 22, 23:34 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
54. |
Jun 22, 19:19 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
55. |
Jun 22, 19:33 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
56. |
Jun 22, 20:19 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
57. |
Jun 22, 20:41 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
59. |
Jun 22, 21:09 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
61. |
Jun 22, 22:21 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
63. |
Jun 22, 22:58 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
45. |
Jun 22, 17:50 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
47. |
Jun 22, 17:58 |
Re: Op Ed |
CJ_Parker |
| |
48. |
Jun 22, 18:02 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
52. |
Jun 22, 19:07 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
46. |
Jun 22, 17:57 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
49. |
Jun 22, 18:07 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
50. |
Jun 22, 18:26 |
Re: Op Ed |
Cutter |
| |
65. |
Jun 23, 06:04 |
Re: Op Ed |
jacobvandy |
| |
66. |
Jun 23, 08:54 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
67. |
Jun 23, 12:00 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
|
|
|